How to make record albums

Thanks for the tip on Joe Jackson.. I learn something on here everyday.

I agree about Martin also. The mixing console is whole other story.

And again you can look at tube based vs solid state studio gear. I know this forum is more for "The Listener" but we have to remember that no matter what you have invested in "audiophile gear", we are always limited by the source recording.

There is no such thing as mixing for universal sound across all speakers.

I used to do mixes for my own personal system that would never be released to the public. Why? because it would sound horrible on a car stereo or boom box.

Again I am talking rock records here, where there are too many instruments sharing the same frequency bands.

The old timers knew what they were doing.

A drum kit, upright bass, piano, and a horn or two, and you have a natural separation of frequencies that don't need manipulation in post production.

That's a big reason why that stuff sounds so good.. just common sense.

Onhwy61, what you say is not entirely true. A lot depends on the budget and space that is available for a band to record in.

An example is something called 'the Church' in Duluth, Minnesota. A good number of local Twin Cities bands travel to Duluth to use this studio because of the space- because they can record with only two mics, no EQ/no compression, no overdubs. One band that has done this a lot (and as a result, has turned out some great LPs) is a Duluth band called Low. I'm pretty sure Paul Metzger has recorded there too.

None of this material is on the audiophile's radar, even though it was done all-analog, on 180 gr. vinyl at RTI, yada yada.

When we did our LPs, we had our own space to do the work. Although they are not audiophiles, the other members of my band insisted on no overdubs, that is, the material was all recorded in the same space at the same time. We were still learning the space at the time so I think the first LP did not turn out as well sonically as the new one.

The second time around I rebuilt a set of Western Electric tube mic preamps, and we ran them directly into the recorder, and used them for the drums, which had a set of Neumann U-67s overhead with a few spots on the snare, ride and kickdrum. But we recorded the whole thing in one go for each track on the LP. There were separate tracks for each instrument/microphone, so we could mix it later.

BTW in our case, the LP is the only format released. We did do 24-bit backup digital tracks, but they proved to be no match for the analog master tapes. When we mixed everything, we used the best systems we could get our hands on for reference (tube amps, high end speakers) with no thought of what it might sound like on a car stereo or Ipod. Guess what- sounds fine on those things too. IMO the idea that you have to mix for a car stereo or whatever is stupid, plain and simple.

I do not agree that recording a band is all that different from recording an orchestra; I've done both and I have found that they have more in common **so long as the band is trying to get the best sound possible**.

The trick is: no EQ, no compression, no overdubs. But- you **do** have to know what you are doing with the mics!

Atmashpere, great description of your recording projects.

I think we agree that great recordings start with great musicians, a great recording space, great mics and mic preamps. We differ on the degree that classical recordings are similar to pop/rock recordings. You remark that they are very similar if the rock band is trying to get the best sound possible. I guess it depends on how you define that. Steely Dan, Roxy Music, Micheal Jackson/Quincy Jones, Pink Floyd, the Eagles, etc. all are known to be fanatical about getting the best possible sound for their recordings. They're all big users of multi-track over dubbing with extensive signal processing. They are still able to achieve high quality sounding recordings. In skilled hands with high budgets multi-track over dubbing can work extremely well. For these artists there is not even a single in-studio performance that is being documented. This process differs from classical style recording in that the music arises from a multitude of recordings and is literally created after the fact by the technology. If what you're trying to record is an actual in-studio performance by a band, then classical and pop/rock recordings are very much alike.

Atmasphere, that deal with where to place the mics sounds like that could be a critical thing.

What was so special about for instance, Ken Wilkinson? He knew what to do with the mics. Is it that he had an ear for where to place them? Is there a general formula for this? I see his name everywhere on the Decca classical list. All of the classical recordings he is associated with are very good to fantastic. I am sure that others knew what he did. He did seem to pick the same places to do the recordings.

Wilma Cozart Fine is another one who was instumental in making great recordings. It looks like Mercury used three mics for their recordings. They did not look like they were set up in any real specialized way. Maybe they were and it just does not look like it

I have not heard or seen a good classical album made like these in years. Why Not? Who would one contact to try to get the ball rolling? Stereophile? Absolute Sound? How would one go about doing something great?

Maybe recording a smaller ensemble in a great place acoustically would be a good place to start. I don't know. I certainly do not know what it takes to make a great recording but I would be willing to help in any way if a group of people wanted to try to make it happen.

If you want to replicate the classic Mercury sound, you might try sending the line output down a few miles of telephone wire!